Originally Posted by NM Golf
This is very similiar to the fight faced by the LGBT community as they try to gain the right to marry. Banning something based completely on aesthetics and not evidence just seems antiquated and wrong to me.
Originally Posted by Mordan
Wow there have been some questionable arguments in this thread that but that one takes the cake.
You're serious trying to equate a fight for the free choice to marry whoever someone pleases with decision over where the line lays in an arbitrary set of rules governing a made up game? Wow.
Originally Posted by Stretch
I believe he's saying that the arguments and attitude of those opposed to both practices are rather similar. And I agree with him.
Originally Posted by iacas
They're not the same. Give me a break. The Rules of Golf are arbitrary rules for a game we invented. They have absolutely nothing to do with basic human rights or civil liberties or actual LAW. And I couldn't care less if two people want to marry each other, regardless of either of their genders.
Here's the deal: they don't feel it's a stroke, and they feel the game of golf will be better off if the practice is prohibited. They're doing it because they think it's the right thing to do.
They've been very clear about that. There was a time when we'd admire a group that stood up for what they thought was right. Now I guess we just say "there seems to me no logical reason to have this fight." They're doing what they think is best for the integrity of the game. Both the USGA and the R&A.
1. He never said they were "the same". He said they were very similar.
2. The Rules of Golf are arbitrary rules for a game we (mankind?) invented. They have absolutely nothing to do with human rights, or civil liberties, or actual LAW. Well, except that laws are arbitrary rules that we (mankind) invented and they're SO arbitrary that many vary depending on the city, county, state or country you live in.
To say that it's not similar and to forget that the process is nearly identical. We elect representatives to create laws that we HOPE will be based on the needs and desires of the people. In the same way we elect officers in the USGA with the HOPE that they will govern in a way that will promote the game while protecting its integrity as a sport.
Marriage laws are simply arbitrary laws created by society. The age at which you can marry without parental consent varies widely throughout the world. The requirements for marriage also vary (in Missouri I had a three-day-waiting period). And just as the marriage laws differ, so do the divorce laws.
Marriage isn't a "human right". Choosing to live your life with whomever you wish is a human right. The "rights" that go along with marriage (you know, like the right to all of their possessions if they should die) are arbitrary laws that man created. Marriage is a legal condition created by marriage laws. It's a piece of paper. Your COMMITMENT to your partner, no matter what sex they are, is what matters. Not some piece of paper. The only reason marriage is even an issue to homosexuals is because we've created so many MORE arbitrary laws that give benefits to people who get that piece of paper and they want those benefits as well.
But if you think that laws are somehow completely different than rules of a sport that were created by an elected, governing body, then I think you're reaching.